Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
check. do people agree with the obama administration, this threat of going off the cliff if rates aren't reached. here's what nancy pelosi had to say about geithner's remarks. let me play it. >> if there is no agreement, then the fiscal cliff has to be dealt with. i didn't see it if they decent this, we do that. i saw it as a statement of fact. it's not a threat. it's a prediction. if there's no agreement, we go over the cliff. let's hope we can have an agreement. >> what do you make of the way she put it? it's not a threat. she said, listen, these are the facts. >> nice little economy you have there. nice little economy you have there. it would be a shame it if anything happened to it. that's not a threat. look, we have to start looking at what happens if we do, in fact, go over the so-called cliff, and what happens is, you know, one thing is we take a huge bite out of the deficit. we do it in a crude may, and there would be immediate attempts to fix it and fine-tune it and take some back. some would probably get through. if you actually want to look at it from a policy standpoint, it
. there's no prospect to an agreement that doesn't involve those rates going up on the top 2% of the wealthiest. >> so is it a bluff when the obama administration says they're willing to go off the cliff if a deal is not reached on rates? >> i don't think it's a bluff. if you look at the reality of what happens, all the leverage which i -- right now clearly the white house has. they get more leverage if we go over their cliff. you can argue that would not send a good message to the country, to the world. it would prove that we are dysfunctional and cannot govern, et cetera, et cetera. in terms of dealing with the policy problem, which is you have this massive and growing debt, you have to bring in more revenues. there's multiple ways to do it, but critical ways to raise rates on the top end. it was what the election was about. republicans want to play the game where they think they get something. at the end of the day they lose worse if we go over the cliff. >> that's an interesting insight because you have alan simpson on the "today" show asked dp one side is a winner or los
.5% or so top rate that president obama wants to return to which we paid under clinton is very, very popular. republicans should ought not fall on that sword. the democrats are ed e ready to endorse 98% of the hated bush tax cuts. i would call that a win and toss the other 2% overboard. >> there's also a lot of talk here in washington, has been for a couple weeks about false confidence. the false confidence that happened at the end of the election there. the mitt romney people pretty much told a lot of us they were confident it was going to be a long night and that they would win. i want to read you something from the new republic about team romney's internal polling. says the biggest flaw in their polling was the failure to predict the demographic composition of the electorate. the people who showed up to vote on november 6 were younger and less white than team romney anticipated and far more democratic as a result. so i want to ask you, erick, is this sort of a misunderstanding generally that republicans have to address the next time they go into an election about who the voters are going
and everyone -- [ talking over each other ] >> sean: i never cheated on my taxes i promise. obama would have caught me by now. look at his proposal, 1.6 trillion tax cut. increase rates on the wealthy only. new stimulus program 150 billion. and he wants a blank cheque that. is not a serious proposal bob. >> it is not. you talk to people in the real world, not in washington, but in the real world, they say the numbers and how this is done, i don't give a damn. i just want them to fix it. what the republicans should do is say these are the things we are going to fix. these are the numbers and this is our proposal. >> sean: wait a minute, i don't think you are being fair in one sense. the republicans said to the chagrin of a lot of conservatives that revenue is on the table. obama has said, my way or the highway. his proposal, his budget plan that nobody voted for last year. >> yes and he's asking for more revenue on the debt ceiling he's saying abolish congress' authority to borrow. i want the authority to be in the white house for -- >> sean: obama not leading again. >> it is a giant problem.
to understand is that tax rates are going up on january 1 within obama care. so we're talking about almost a trillion dollars of increases in taxes and fees. >> let's not talk about the democrats for a moment. let's not even talk about what the president's put on the table. let's talk about the republicans. give me specific cuts that republicans would be behind. because we're really short on specifics from the gop. lay out for me, here's what we're willing to cut in terms of entitlements. put it on the table. >> look, there's been a plan in terms of indexing the increases. we are going to have to find a way to reduce the gap between how much medicare costs per person and how much we pay. because it's not going to last. it's going to go broke. >> so let me bring in nan for a second, then. forgive me for cutting you off. tick off for me. as you know, one of the biggest criticisms from the dems, the republicans as much as they're flabbergasted and shock and amazed and -- >> of course we are, dosoledad. the simpson/bowles commission 3-1 expenses to taxes. the plan president boehner sent at 2-1
that it will throw the country into a recession. that would hurt the whole country, of course president obama as well. they have to be careful here as well. but democrats and the president clearly believe that they have the leverage to force an increase in these tax rates on the upper income americans before they agree to a deal. >> we'll all be watching the stock market as well. if that indeed happen. >>> the president is also concentrating on recasting his new cabinet and one name that came up yesterday is a replacement for leon panetta at the defense department. actually a republican, chuck hagel. former senator from nebraska. >> it's possible, but this is a real game of musical chairs right now. the president has to fill at least three big jobs, secretary of state, hillary clinton, defense and cia. and if the president does not choose susan rice that means john kerry goes to state and hagel goes to defense. if he chooses kerry for state then you could end up having hagel go to cia. we just don't know right now. but all of those names are in play as we talk. >> this wouldn't be his first republica
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6